dolfin team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 05:29:14PM +0100, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
> 2008/12/3 Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 03:18:35PM +0100, buildbot@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >> The Buildbot has detected a new failure of linux_64.
> >> Full details are available at:
> >>  http://fenics.org:8010/dolfin/linux_64/builds/1082
> >>
> >> Buildbot URL: http://fenics.org:8010/dolfin/
> >>
> >> Buildslave for this Build: x64-linux
> >>
> >> Build Reason:
> >> Build Source Stamp: HEAD
> >> Blamelist: Anders Logg
> >>
> >> BUILD FAILED: failed test
> >>
> >> sincerely,
> >>  -The Buildbot
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> DOLFIN-dev mailing list
> >> DOLFIN-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
> >> http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
> >
> > Should be fixed now. I removed the extra test added to
> > Coefficient::attach.
> >
> > Don't know yet why the extra test breaks (probably in the call to
> > Function::in).
> 
> This call compares the function space object addresses, so it's no
> wonder it fails.

That might very well be the reason, but the error message seems to
indicate something else.

But why shouldn't it be ok to compare the pointers? I imagine that
shared_ptr has implemented a reasonable comparison operator that does
the right thing.

-- 
Anders

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature